Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [carfree_cities] Frequently Asked Questions

Expand Messages
  • Andras Toth
    Hello, I would add the following question to the FAQ: Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That sounds like nonsense. Cycling is
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2002
      Hello,

      I would add the following question to the FAQ:

      "Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That
      sounds like nonsense. Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
      breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
      because it does not shield you if there is an accident. In addition, the
      bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
      and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
      children, and does not offer any protection against weather! How could it
      be a realistic alternative?"

      I realize the answer requires a whole essay but most people really think
      that way about cycling, and need to be informed.

      Andras Toth
    • Henning Mortensen
      ... I know Andras is possing questions which may be asked by others. Take these answers as being to some other, and not to Andras. ... I believe there is a
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2002
        >From: Andras Toth <toth_andras@...>

        I know Andras is possing questions which may be asked by others. Take these
        answers as being to some other, and not to Andras.

        >" Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
        >breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
        >because it does not shield you if there is an accident.


        I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
        health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
        more from car fumes. I believe the hypothesis is that because you are
        breathing deeper and more vigorously the crud does not settle in your lungs.
        Anyone have the citation? And of course, in a car free city, exhaust fumes
        would be limited to carbon dioxide exhaled by others.

        As for the safety with regards to accidents, it must be noted that a bicycle
        is a very safe vehicle. The statistics bear this out. Simply remove
        accidents involving bikes where such accident is a collision with a car, and
        all of a sudden it becomes clear that short of the very rare head trauma
        death sustained from falling at high speeds, a bike is far safer then a car.
        In my local area, we had a death rate of 1:5000 people, due to car
        accidents. In my country, the national average is 1:10000. This is people
        killed in a single year in motor vehicle accidents. Surely bikes are much
        safer then this, especially in a car free environment. (actual stats on bike
        deaths here would help)

        >bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
        >and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
        >children,

        That it takes effort to bike I can not argue. It requires effort to breath
        also. Skyrocketing obesity rates not withstanding, all of us would do well
        to expend more effort.

        As for range, sweat, and dirt it must be noted that in a carfree city all
        distances would be remarkably reduced, transit would augment longer rides,
        and of course a city with more inhabitants outside, would presumably be
        cleaner.

        A set of pannier bags will easily carry home your groceries, and children
        can be transported in trailers, in bike seats, with one wheeled bike
        trailers or on their own bikes. Biking as a family can be both enjoyable and
        efficient.


        >and does not offer any protection against weather!

        Here I agree, weather can be a pain, but so is traffic.

        >How could it be a realistic alternative?

        Many people are already doing it with-out major hardship, give it a try you
        will love the freedom and community you feel.

        >
        >I realize the answer requires a whole essay but most people really think
        >that way about cycling, and need to be informed.

        agreed!
        Henning Mortensen




        _________________________________________________________________
        Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city can exist without
        Message 3 of 11 , May 3, 2002
          Andras Toth said:


          >"Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That
          >sounds like nonsense. Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
          >breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
          >because it does not shield you if there is an accident. In addition, the
          >bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
          >and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
          >children, and does not offer any protection against weather! How could it
          >be a realistic alternative?"

          Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and
          public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city
          can exist without bicycles, as does Venice.


          I'm keeping a list of this stuff so far, but I can't take on the
          long-term management of a FAQ. I've just got too much else to do,
          including finishing work on the book-length City Design section of
          Carfree.com. So, we need a volunteer.



          -- ### --

          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          mailbox@... Carfree.com
        • J.H. Crawford
          ... This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than the outside air.
          Message 4 of 11 , May 3, 2002
            Henning Mortensen replied:

            >>From: Andras Toth <toth_andras@...>

            >>" Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
            >>breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
            >>because it does not shield you if there is an accident.
            >
            >
            >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
            >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
            >more from car fumes.

            This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate
            in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than
            the outside air.

            >As for the safety with regards to accidents, it must be noted that a bicycle
            >is a very safe vehicle.

            Not really. When forced to ride in traffic, biking is statistically
            considerably much more dangerous than driving (walking is worse still).
            This is, of course, because of vehicular traffic. (The statistics
            are on the basis of distance travelled, not years.)

            The Dutch have determined, however, that biking is a net pubilc health
            gain, because the extra exercize is so healthy. This is, of course,
            in a society where the air is generally fairly good (when the wind
            isn't blowing out of the Ruhr Valley), car traffic in cities is
            moderate, and there is a long tradition of biking, with virtually
            every family owning and using bikes regularly.




            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... Carfree.com
          • Mark Rauterkus
            Housekeeping @ FAQ Hi All, As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we need the answers.
            Message 5 of 11 , May 4, 2002
              Housekeeping @ FAQ


              Hi All,

              As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
              need the answers. <;O

              The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain -- or put under a most
              liberal copyright and reuse license, such as the Design Science License
              (www.dsl.org). Then others can freely repost and make modifications.

              A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
              add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
              threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
              NEWSGROUP.

              The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
              the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

              We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
              I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
              http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

              Thanks for all you do!

              Ta.

              Mark Rauterkus
              mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
            • J.H. Crawford
              ... Let s just call it the FAQ, since that s the normal name. It always comes with answers! ... I agree, I don t think it should be copyrighted at all. ... I
              Message 6 of 11 , May 5, 2002
                Mark Rauterkus said:

                >As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
                >need the answers. <;O

                Let's just call it the FAQ, since that's the normal name. It always
                comes with answers!

                >The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain.

                I agree, I don't think it should be copyrighted at all.

                >A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
                >add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
                >threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
                >NEWSGROUP.

                I don't know how this works.

                >The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
                >the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

                That's a big ambiguous, let's just use "FAQ", which is not.

                >We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
                >I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
                >http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

                Keep us posted. I think for now it should be fairly simple, not more
                than 20 questions, and as far as I'm concerned, it could go on the
                new Carfree Institute site. Carfree.com would host it, of course, if
                need be.

                Regards,



                -- ### --

                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                mailbox@... Carfree.com
              • T. J. Binkley
                ... Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a car s interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be breathing
                Message 7 of 11 , May 5, 2002
                  >
                  >
                  >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
                  >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
                  >more from car fumes.

                  Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a
                  car's interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be
                  breathing in less toxic air. Not so sure about a vigorously breathing
                  cyclist or jogger though...

                  >I believe the hypothesis is that because you are
                  >breathing deeper and more vigorously the crud does not settle in your lungs.

                  ...actually breathing deeper and more vigorously DOES cause more of the
                  crud to irritate your lungs. This was demonstrated by recent studies
                  linking increased asthma incidence in urban children, and even higher
                  incidence in urban children who participate in lots of outdoor sports.

                  >Anyone have the citation?

                  Data on air quality inside cars:
                  Gee I.L. and Raper D.W., 'Commuter exposure to respirable particles inside
                  buses and by bicycle', The Science of the Total Environment, 235, 403-405
                  (1999)
                  Kingham S., Meaton J., Sheard A. and Lawrenson O., 'Assessment of exposure to
                  traffic-related fumes during the journey to work', Transpn Res.-D, vol 3 no
                  4, 271-274 (1998)
                  Lawryk, N. J. and Weisel, C. P., 'Concentrations of volatile organic
                  compounds in
                  passenger compartments of automobiles', Environmental Science Technology
                  30, 810-816 (1996)
                  Van Wijnen, J. H., Verhoeff, A. P., Jans, H. W. A. and van Bruggen, M.,
                  'The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related
                  air pollutants', International Archives of
                  Environmental Health 67, 187-193 (1995)
                  --
                  Dr Adrian Croucher
                  Department of Engineering Science
                  University of Auckland
                  New Zealand
                  tel 64-9-373-7599 ext 4611


                  A. Exclusive Official study shows that air pollution causes the
                  disease affecting 5m Britons
                  By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
                  Pollution from car exhausts causes asthma, dramatic new official research
                  shows.
                  A massive study, backed by the Californian and US governments, has
                  demonstrated for the first time that ozone, the main component of smog, can
                  cause healthy children to develop the life-threatening condition. Top
                  British scientists believe it has provided the "smoking gun" that finally
                  links pollution to the disease.
                  The conclusion - which vindicates an Independent on Sunday campaign that
                  began more than eight years ago - is likely to have an explosive effect on
                  transport and health policy in Britain, which suffers from the highest
                  incidence of asthma in Europe.
                  It comes as the Government's own chief scientific adviser, Professor David
                  King, calls for a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel, a measure that
                  would drastically reduce the pollutants that cause asthma and global
                  warming. He says announcing a ban to take effect some years in the future
                  would force companies to develop "green" cars running on electricity and
                  hydrogen.
                  More than one in every seven children in the country now suffers from
                  asthma - six times as many as 25 years ago - and, in all, five million
                  Britons have the disease: 18,000 new cases are diagnosed each week, and
                  1,500 people die from it every year.
                  Yet the Government has done little to tackle the pollution now being
                  identified as one of the causes of the epidemic. Ozone is excluded from
                  national measures being implemented by local authorities to tackle
                  contaminated air.
                  Scientists have long agreed that ozone exacerbates the disease in those who
                  have it, and many have suspected that it causes it in the first place. But
                  in the absence of proof there has been little political interest in
                  tackling it. The new study breaks the impasse.
                  "We have known for some time that smog can trigger attacks in asthmatics,"
                  says Alan C Lloyd, California's top air pollution official. "This study
                  has shown that ozone can cause asthma as well."
                  Professor Rob McConnell of the University of Southern California, the
                  leading author of the study, and his colleagues made the connection by
                  mounting the first study of its kind into the disease in children. They
                  identified 3,535 children aged nine and over, with no history of asthma,
                  living in both smoggy and relatively unpolluted towns and suburbs, and
                  recorded what happen to them over the next five years.
                  Uniquely, they took particular notice of how much sport the children
                  played. Sporty children are exposed to more air pollution, both because
                  they spend more time outdoors and because vigorous exercise makes them
                  breathe 17 times faster, and draws air deeper into the lungs.
                  They found that children who played three or more sports in smoggy areas
                  were more than three times more likely to get asthma than equally active
                  children in relatively unpolluted ones. Less sporty children in polluted
                  towns and suburbs were also more likely to get the disease, though not to
                  the same extent.
                  Top British experts last week hailed the study as a breakthrough. "It is
                  very, very important - the first paper I know of that suggests that
                  pollution may cause asthma," said Dr John Ayres, professor of respiratory
                  medicine at the University of Birmingham.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.